18 U.S.C. § 960
Expedition against friendly nation
Whoever, within the United States, knowingly begins or sets on foot or provides or prepares a means for or furnishes the money for, or takes part in, any military or naval expedition or enterprise to be carried on from thence against the territory or dominion of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States is at peace, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: Gooch v. Life Investors Insurance Co. of America
Gooch v. Life Investors Insurance Co. of America (2012)
“…] any military or naval expedition ... against ... any foreign. . . people with whom the United States is at peace." 18 U.S.C. § 960 .”
United States v. Khan (2006)
“Chapman was acquitted on two counts, but convicted on the following five counts: (1) one count of conspiracy to violate the Neutrality Act (18 U.S.C § 960); (2) one count of conspiracy to contribute material support to LET, knowing and intending that it was to be used in…”
New York Times Co. v. United States Deparment of Justice (2014)
“58 (1984) (concluding that section 5 of the Neutrality Act, 18 U.S.C. § 960 , which is also in chapter 45 and which forbids the planning of, or participation in, military or naval expeditions to be carried on from the United States against a foreign state with which the United…”
United States v. Yasith Chhun (2014)
“§ 956 (b), and Count Three charged him with violating the Neutrality Act, 18 U.S.C. § 960 . 6 Both crimes include the element that the United States and the foreign country in question be “at peace.”
United States v. Khan (2004)
“§ 2339A), commencing an expedition against a friendly nation (Counts 9-10, 18 U.S.C. § 960 ), conspiracy to possess and use firearms in connection with a crime of violence (Count 11, 18 U.”
United States v. Benkahla (2008)
“See 18 U.S.C. §§ 960 , 2339A, 2390 (2000). But Benkahla was not charged with that conspiracy.”
Dellums v. Smith (1983)
“*1492 The plaintiffs allege that they have presented sufficient information to the Attorney General to require him to investigate whether there have been criminal violations of any or all of three Acts of Congress: the Neutrality Act ( 18 U.S.C. § 960 ) which makes it a crime to…”
Barbara Jean Johnson, Cross-Appellant v. Offshore Express, Inc., Cross-Appellee (1988)
“§ 371 and for violations of the Neutrality Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 960 , 962. On November 5, 1986, she was sentenced to one year in federal prison.”
United States v. Yasith Chhun (2007)
“” Count Three of the First Superseding Indictment charges Defendant Chhun with a violation of 18 U.S.C § 960 for conspiracy to take part in a military expedition against a foreign state with which the United States is “at peace.”
Javier Sanchez-Espinoza v. Ronald Wilson Reagan, President of the United States (1985)
“Neither the text not the legislative history of any of these enactments suggests an attempt to create private damage actions, which would be strange tools for resolution of inter-branch disputes or allocation of intrabranch responsibilities, particularly in the sensitive fields…”
United States v. Raymond Ramirez, United States of America v. Claude Perpignand (1985)
“§ 371 ) 2 and actual violation of the Neutrality Act (Count 2 — 18 U.S.C. § 960 ). 3 Both defendants entered conditional pleas of guilty to the substantive offense.”
United States v. Stephen D. Black and Joe D. Hawkins (1982)
“The Nazi and Confederate flags were introduced, along with military fatigue clothes, canteens, knives, assault rifles, and other military gear to show the military nature of the group, as well as to counter appellants’ contention that their motive was to defend America against…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.